Scott at rednet.org
Sun Sep 17 12:06:00 MDT 1995
>And since no human being can master
>such unintended consequences, the idea of human control over all aspects
>of the social totality, envisioned in the Marxian ideal of communism, is
Who would argue such an undialectical notion of communism, certainly not
>Hayek is no raving individualist here. He is fully dialectical. He
>recognizes that the whole is an organic totality, that knowledge is a
>social product, and that internal relations are essential to the whole.
>He merely believes that nobody can know fully the nature of these
>internal relations in the complex network of an organic totality; to fool
>oneself into believing that one can control that totality is not only a
>pretense of knowledge--it is a prescription for calculational chaos and
>ultimately, oppression and brutality.
The above is built on a wrong and undialectical notion of Marxist theory of
knowledge, but... If this is true then where does it leave us? Accepting the
'way things are'? with the dubious 'knowledge' and 'humility' that we can't
really solve anything or change anything. That all attempts to overthrow the
system will just inevitably lead to disaster. This is a tired but very
prevalent notion of those opposed to Marxism. How nice for those with a
stake in the system.
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism